The combination of House legislation and the results of hush-hush meetings between the White House and the Senate Republicans has produced a rare moment of clarity on the contentious issue of immigration.

The House produced the first bipartisan overhaul bill of the session. And after weeks of shuttle diplomacy worthy of peace negotiations, details of private strategy sessions on immigration between Republican senators and the White House have emerged, providing hints about the GOP state of mind and a potential roadmap to a bill that could become law.

A path to permanent residency for the estimated 12 million undocumented immigrants is in. But making it easy -- or affordable -- for them is out, according to the group's working paper that began circulating on Capitol Hill just before the spring break.

Granting visas based on merit is in. A long-standing goal of reunifying families through the immigration system is out.

And, as expected, tougher border enforcement and sanctions on employers who flout the rules are way, way in.

These details, contrasted with the House bill introduced two weeks ago and endorsed by the Senate's leading Democrat on the issue, Edward M. Kennedy (Mass.), offer the earliest glimpse of the competing ideas that could define the immigration debate.

There's general overlap between the House bill and the Senate Republican working paper on strengthening border security and establishing an employer verification system, but disagreement on granting visas based on family preference and creating a path to citizenship for the existing pool of 12 million undocumented immigrants.

With Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) considering votes in late May, staff members for Democratic and Republican senators will begin writing a bill this week, aides said Monday.

"I am more encouraged than I have ever been," said Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who has participated in the strategy sessions.

Kennedy has acknowledged common ground on border security and employer enforcement, but suggested he was unwilling to budge on key pieces, framing the issue in moral terms.

"Family reunification has been an essential aspect of these policies," Kennedy said last week. "Many of those who are brought in, in terms of families, have become actively involved. They open small stores, play a significant role in the economy. The families and the importance of family unity are extremely important."

He continued: "But it is a moral issue how we are going to treat workers. On these issues, these are moral issues, principled issues, where there aren't compromises. There are stakeholders in the final determinant of whether something will fly. If it is doesn't have the confidence of the people it is affecting, that legislation is going nowhere."

The National Immigration Forum, an immigrant advocacy group, quickly labeled the Senate Republican proposal as a "step back" that was "neither workable or passable."

Angela Kelley, the forum's deputy director, said it was unclear whether the Senate Republican plan would offer a realistic chance for undocumented immigrants to earn green cards.

The paper does not discuss boosting the number of available green cards, but does specify that those who apply would be considered under a new merit-based point system that uses education, skills and English proficiency, as well as evidence of civic roots and years of work in the United States, as determining factors.

An advocacy group on the flip side of the issue, Federation for American Immigration Reform, is not pleased, either.

Ira Mehlman, a group spokesman, said there are "some elements that are worth looking at," such as the rollback of preferences for immigrants with family members already in the United States.

"But as a package, it is not something we would be able to support," Mehlman said. "The outline looks like a giant unworkable kind of system."

Senate Republicans and their aides cautioned that the working paper was exactly that, a fluid product from weeks of brainstorming sessions.

About a month ago, a handful of GOP senators and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Commerce Secretary Carlos Gutierrez began meeting three to four times a week at the Dirksen Senate Office Building. The senators included Arlen Specter (Pa.), John Cornyn (Texas), Jon Kyl (Ariz.) and Mel Martinez (Fla.).

The unusual high-level meetings reflect President Bush's desire to secure a major domestic win in the final two years of his presidency. He receives regular updates on the deliberations, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino acknowledged last week.

"I think we are making some progress," she said. "There's a range of issues -- it's a very complicated matter, and there's lots of different strings that you can pull on in different areas."

Here’s a comparison of two immigration proposals, specifically where their ideas align and diverge. One is a bipartisan House bill introduced last month produced by Reps. Luis V. Gutierrez (D-Ill.) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.). The second is a working document by the White House and Republican senators after weeks of private strategy sessions. It began circulating last week on Capitol Hill.

Temporary Worker Program/Future Flow of Immigrant Workers

Common ground: The proposals establish a temporary visa program with an annual cap that is adjusted periodically based on market demand. Employers must first attempt to hire U.S. workers or show that none was available to fill job openings.

Differences: Under the House bill, temporary workers receive three-year visas that could be renewed for an additional three years. The White House/Senate GOP plan offers two-year visas, followed by six months in their home country. The visas could be renewed twice.

Differences: The House bill requires applicants who want to establish legal permanent residency to return home at some point under the six-year temporary visa and pay penalties of $1,500. The White House/Senate GOP plan allows workers to seek long-term residence status, but they must first return home to apply for a green card and pay penalties of up to $10,000. It is unclear how long they would have to stay outside the United States.

Family Preferences v. Employment Needs

Common ground: Both plans increase the number of visas awarded based on employment needs.

Differences: The House plan attempts to balance employment needs with a long-standing policy of giving preference to families seeking to join immigrants who are already here. The White House/Senate GOP plan eliminates the preference for siblings and adult children, shifting those visa openings to skilled workers who meet “national-interest criteria.”

Border Security

Common ground: The proposals establish so-called trigger mechanisms, with a beefed-up border enforcement and a system for employers to verify the status of workers and other requirements that must be met before temporaryworker and green-card programs can begin.

Differences: The White House/Senate GOP plan calls for 18,300 new border patrol agents, while the House bill aims for and additional 11,600 agents and 3,700 port-of-entry and customs inspectors.

Employer Verification

Common ground: The proposals require employers to verify the legal status of workers before they are hired and would impose significant fines on those who don’t.